Original Sin, the basis for Christianity?

[jmcrae]

-jmcrae

Well, what makes the bishops and pope so special?

They spend their whole lives studying about God, praying, and learning the things of God.

There are lots of scientists and other intelligent people who would say I’m right. So why aren’t we as a whole correct?

Because it’s not your area of expertise.

Let me ask you this. Is the Bible true because all of the bishops and pope of that time said it’s true.

It’s true because it’s true. The Bishops and the Popes figured out that it was true because it matched up with the oral Tradition that came from Jesus through the Apostles, because of their personal experiences with the Sensus Fidelium of the people of God, and because it corresponded with what they knew of God personally through prayer.

And you believe that they knew what they were talking about because the Bible says they are the leaders of the Church? Isn’t that a bit circulatory?

Well considering that the bible didn’t exist yet - no.

It was Jesus who put the Apostles in charge of the Church, and the Bishops were/are their successors. There are references to this practice in the Bible, of course, but that’s not where their authority comes from. Their authority comes originally from Jesus, who lived in the early part of the first century. We didn’t have a Bible until the early 400s AD, but we’ve had Bishops and Popes right from the very beginning.

 

[Nullasalus]

-Nullasalus

Sorry, Punctuated Evolution is not in Wikipedia (or I just can’t find it), and therefore, doesn’t exist. (joking, but seriously).

I corrected it in a late-edit to my post. Punctuated equilibrium. Included is the wiki link.

Yes, evolution is biology. Huts and skyscrapers are technology. It’s not a narrow view of things, they’re two different fields. I see. You’re looking at it in terms of a creator’s perspective. That’s assuming my friend. Your point is that it all just depends on whatever your perspective and what you think right?

I don’t have to look at it from a creator’s perspective, really. Obviously I’m not talking about biological evolution when I refer to huts → skyscrapers. On the other hand, ‘biological evolution’ is not the only way for a species to… well, evolve. Humans are exceptional in this capacity, which is why you probably regard it as ‘two seperate things’. Humanity no longer really evolves in any way resembling the rest of the natural world, because our consciousness and mental faculties allow us to end-run around normal, ‘natural’ results. Does that mean humans no longer evolve, period? I don’t believe that’s accurate. Do organisms only evolve through biological evolution? No, if you only count the natural world as a real incident of that (micro-evolution in laboraties comes to mind.)

Well then tell me. Why do whales have hands? Why do we have an appendix? And if you don’t think whales have hands, go look it up.

“Because at one point they were useful.” I’m not sure why this matters to anything. I never denied biological evolution. I pointed out that universal gradualism is controversial.

Yes, much of it is opinion, but it should also be much fact. Most opinions are based on some kinds of facts, but I see none for Christianity. Yes, humans are exceptional. But there could have been, or were others, we just killed them off and didn’t allow them to develope.

Pretty big assumptions there, but do as you will. I’m not sure where you’re going with ‘You see no facts for Christianity’, but I’m not interested in engaging that right now anyway. Evolution is topic enough, and I think I’ve so far done a good job of what I wanted to illustrate - evolution itself is far from a factual repudiation of theism in general, or Christianity in particular. Some christians may choose to believe in a literal genesis, but I do not, so that argument doesn’t fly with me. I find evolution to be entirely compatible with the Christian/Catholic view of the universe. I find it to be purposeful as well. I wouldn’t go so far as to say I could provide scientific proof that it was intelligently designed - that strikes me as overconfident and deceptive. But then, so does arguing that evolution was random and pointless. There’s no real proof for either, just interpretation of data. I’m sure you know what I think is right.

Yeah, you’d be dead if you couldn’t (that’s kind of the basis for natural selection). And you don’t even have to be conscious of it.

You misunderstand. ‘I am capable of doing things, yet unaware of the specifics of how i do it.’ Yet, I am still capable of those things. Maybe there IS some ‘programmed morality’ in the human mind. How much? I do not know. This is nature v nurture, a fight which is still ongoing, and is hardly black and white.

That’s a damned good point. But everyone has the capability of being intelligent, it’s just that not everyone has the chance to develope it. But if say you left several children alone together, would they then develope communication skills? Maybe. They would not be lacking in “intellectual faculties that determine the human experience.” I don’t think our human experience is determined strictly by certain experiences like how we think or what we do. Atheism would not be ignorance in our world today, it would be more like rejection or disbelief. There are ignorant atheists as well as ignorant religious people.

It’s yet another grey area, sure. We don’t even have a real theory of consciousness yet, so explaining why conscious agents think what they do (or what they would think in different circumstances) is all conjecture. I don’t see why a God wouldn’t use memetics, biology, evolution, and everything else we know about the world in ‘His plan’. Even the Catholic God. This is why I jumped into this talk about evolution, and the concepts of theistic evolution versus atheistic evolution. I (And Ken Miller, I assume, among others) don’t view evolution as contrary to theism, or Christianity. In fact, I see plenty of good philosophical reason to see plenty of evidence for Christianity in it. I think some atheists suspect the same, which is why creationism in schools was an adorable eye-rolling affair, but intelligent design (which I have issues with) prompted visceral responses from the same people.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

People had faith that what the Bible told of creation was true, but when the evolution theory became stronger, reason conflicted with their faith.

The creation account is true…but we have to be careful to understand the text in the fashion it was written. There are many different understandings of the creation story with many Church Fathers indicating that it was not a literal accounting.

With cross breeding like tiger-lion, horse-donkey, turkey-chicken possible I don’t see how you can not think that there is at least some small scale evolution that occurs. On the other hand all the different breeds of dogs can interbreed although with large size differences this would be dangerous.

I have wondered just how much possible variety exists in all the different creatures on this planet? Could much of the variation we see be from small scale evolution on a lesser number of original creatures. If so, could many similar animals interbreed if conditions were right? I don’t know…any thoughts?

 

[Hubriss]

They spend their whole lives studying about God, praying, and learning the things of God.

-jmcrae

Anyone can do that. You don’t have to be a bishop to be able to philosophise. And who did they learn about God from? And them in turn? There’s no reason to believe that their view of god is right. No one knows the nature of god, no one can “study” god. We can think of what might be, and what could be, but there is no definite knowledge. Those who tell, do not know. Those who know, do not tell. If a god existed, it would be impossible to know the nature of it, even by its very definition. Now, you can claim that this god “revealed” truth to you, but if you cannot show it, why should anyone care?

Because it’s not your area of expertise.

-jmcrae

It is most certainly everyone’s expertise, especially scientists. We try to understand the world we live in. We know what we experience here, and if you say that bishops and popes have some special insight into a world that other people don’t, you’re wrong. I don’t think bishops would even claim that.

It’s true because it’s true. The Bishops and the Popes figured out that it was true because it matched up with the oral Tradition that came from Jesus through the Apostles, because of their personal experiences with the Sensus Fidelium of the people of God, and because it corresponded with what they knew of God personally through prayer.

-jmcrae

What’s the Sensus Fidelium?

There were at least 80 other gospels they had to choose from (so I’ve heard), probably more. There must not have been a very big majority consensus among oral tradition if there were so many versions that had to be left out or completely annihilated all together. Again, you cannot come to know anything about god through thought and prayer. The question of the validity comes down to not, Was Jesus a liar, lunatic, or just a good guy? But were the leaders of the council of Nicea liars, lunatics, good guys, or controllers (or whenever the bible was put together).

Well considering that the bible didn’t exist yet - no.

It was Jesus who put the Apostles in charge of the Church, and the Bishops were/are their successors. There are references to this practice in the Bible, of course, but that’s not where their authority comes from. Their authority comes originally from Jesus, who lived in the early part of the first century. We didn’t have a Bible until the early 400s AD, but we’ve had Bishops and Popes right from the very beginning.

-jmcrae

But there is still the circular dependance. You believe those bishops and apostles were correct and true to their word because the Bible says Jesus gave them the keys to heaven and all that stuff. You only think Jesus actually did that because the Bible says so, and since the Bible was put together by the Bishops, where then does the truth come from? The bishops? No, they were given their power from Jesus. So we trust the Bible that Jesus did actually give the bishops the power? No, the Bible was put together by the bishops themselves.

I corrected it in a late-edit to my post. Punctuated equilibrium. Included is the wiki link.

-Nullasalus

Ok, but punctuated equilibrium does not contradict gradual mutation or evolution. It just states that “most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history.” This does not mean that evolution takes place every once in a while, just that the DNA does not change enough to have an affect on a species characteristics. Mutations occur about every 1 in a billion genes during reproduction (calculated estimate). But a single gene change normally does not change a characteristic. And still, I don’t see how your analogy of huts to skyscrapers is relevant. It just means that god could have suddenly made humans appear at once? Even if so, it wouldn’t be centered on two individuals, unless the rest all died off. Then back to that Mitochondria Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, that I had talked about in another discussion with someone else a while ago, they weren’t even in the right time periods. And that’s all just little attempts to retaining religious views with no real other reason.

Humanity no longer really evolves in any way resembling the rest of the natural world, because our consciousness and mental faculties allow us to end-run around normal, ‘natural’ results. Does that mean humans no longer evolve, period? I don’t believe that’s accurate. Do organisms only evolve through biological evolution? No, if you only count the natural world as a real incident of that (micro-evolution in laboraties comes to mind.)

-Nullasalus

Yeah, I kinda see what you’re saying. But so what?

 

[Hubriss]

“Because at one point they were useful.” I’m not sure why this matters to anything. I never denied biological evolution. I pointed out that universal gradualism is controversial.

-Nullasalus

Yeah, maybe universal gradualism. But not gradual evolution, or mutation.

evolution itself is far from a factual repudiation of theism in general, or Christianity in particular

-Nullasalus

Yeah, so wouldn’t you agree that if Darwinian evolution was proven to be true, Christianity’s factual representation would be diminished?

I wouldn’t go so far as to say I could provide scientific proof that it was intelligently designed - that strikes me as overconfident and deceptive. But then, so does arguing that evolution was random and pointless. There’s no real proof for either, just interpretation of data. I’m sure you know what I think is right.

-Nullasalus

Yeah, I almost completely agree with that. But there is evidense and reason to believe that evolution is random, but no complete proof. But I called you out saying that there is absolutely no evidense for intelligent design. I don’t need you to completely prove it, scientifically or logically, but at least show me some kind of evidense, and that you can’t do.

The creation account is true…but we have to be careful to understand the text in the fashion it was written. There are many different understandings of the creation story with many Church Fathers indicating that it was not a literal accounting.

-Saint&Sinner

Yeah, I have a real big problem with that because that is total B.S. Religion is suppsoed to deal with Truth, not what could be true, or what context something is written in. If it was really inspired by God, why isn’t it literal truth? But if it was just written in context for the people of that time, why not just throw it away? Darwin came up with fierce opposition to his theories. There were other scientists trying to use any evidense they could to prove that the creation story was the literal truth, because everyone believed it at the time. No church father would indicate that it was not true because it was believed by all christians as Truth. And if you’re going to say something like that, at least show me a pope or bishop before Capernicus or Darwin who didn’t believe the creation story.

On the other hand all the different breeds of dogs can interbreed although with large size differences this would be dangerous.

-Saint

Not size differences… genetic differences. Hah, dangerous…?

I have wondered just how much possible variety exists in all the different creatures on this planet? Could much of the variation we see be from small scale evolution on a lesser number of original creatures. If so, could many similar animals interbreed if conditions were right? I don’t know…any thoughts?

-Saint

Well, yeah, that’s pretty much what happens. Similar animals can bread normally only if they are of the same or very close species. They would have to have some very recent common ancestors or not have changed too much. If the Chromosomes and DNA don’t match enough, they can’t reproduce.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

-Yeah, I have a real big problem with that because that is total B.S. Religion is suppsoed to deal with Truth, not what could be true, or what context something is written in. If it was really inspired by God, why isn’t it literal truth? But if it was just written in context for the people of that time, why not just throw it away? Darwin came up with fierce opposition to his theories. There were other scientists trying to use any evidense they could to prove that the creation story was the literal truth, because everyone believed it at the time. No church father would indicate that it was not true because it was believed by all christians as Truth. And if you’re going to say something like that, at least show me a pope or bishop before Capernicus or Darwin who didn’t believe the creation story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis
Is St. Augustine of Hippo good enough?

Saint Augustine, one of the most influential theologians of the Catholic Church, suggested that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason. From an important passage on his “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis” (early fifth century, AD), St. Augustine wrote:

“It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20, Chapt. 19 [AD 408])
“With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.” (ibid, 2:9)

 

[Nullasalus]

Hubriss:

Ok, but punctuated equilibrium does not contradict gradual mutation or evolution. It just states that “most sexually reproducing species will show little to no evolutionary change throughout their history.” This does not mean that evolution takes place every once in a while, just that the DNA does not change enough to have an affect on a species characteristics. Mutations occur about every 1 in a billion genes during reproduction (calculated estimate). But a single gene change normally does not change a characteristic.

Punctuated equilibrium != gradualism. Yes, evolution as a whole may be ‘gradual’, but PE indicates that a species can change, hybridize, or split off rather rapidly. So if you took a very long term (millions of years?) snapshot of a particular species, you would not necessarily see gradual evolution from start to finish. Rather, you’d see the species staying more or less the same for very long periods of time, and then within a comparatively short span (but still many, many lifetimes) there would be a rapid change. Then, back to a relatively stable state.

It’s one more question we have about the ways evolution plays out. Yes, we know that evolution occurs. Is it always a graduated, rather steady process? That’s debatable, and evidence & opinion is conflicted on this point. That’s all I was pointing out - gradualism is far from established, universal law with evolution, unless you’re watering the word down to mean ‘It doesn’t happen over the span of a single lifetime’.

And still, I don’t see how your analogy of huts to skyscrapers is relevant. It just means that god could have suddenly made humans appear at once? Even if so, it wouldn’t be centered on two individuals, unless the rest all died off. Then back to that Mitochondria Eve and Y Chromosome Adam, that I had talked about in another discussion with someone else a while ago, they weren’t even in the right time periods.

.

How many times do I have to tell you that I accept evolution for you to believe me? My point with the evolution of man is that we still are progressing, adapting, and ‘evolving’, but we no longer do so by the purely natural means. We are an extremely unique creature, moreso when you take a look at the ‘second most intelligent/self-aware’ specimens on the planet. As for monogenism, I’ll leave that to someone else except to say that - why I don’t know what to think about it - it’s still possible. You may not believe it, that’s fine. We’re still trying to figure out the specifics of how humanity got to the stage we’re at. From my look at it, something extreme happened in our development, and it was fairly recent.

Yeah, I kinda see what you’re saying. But so what?

Only to point out that mankind is extremely exceptional and special by any reasonable standard, theistic or not.

Yeah, so wouldn’t you agree that if Darwinian evolution was proven to be true, Christianity’s factual representation would be diminished?

Not really, because (to me) Genesis was never meant to explain the mechanism of man’s creation, other than describing God as the source. There’s no explanation of how God created the planets, light, creatures, etc - it’s simply said that God did these things. With man, there’s mention of being carved out of clay and breathing life into it, but that still does nothing to explain how it was done. If the bible - Old Testament or New - was filled with claims of how things work and describing them incorrectly (Similar to the Egyptian’s belief that, for example, eyes provide items with color, rather than realizing items had color and the eyes detected them), I’d see it shot down. In reality, all of the bible has to do with man’s relationship with himself, his fellow man, and God.

Was there a time where many people were looking to Genesis as a factual, literal telling of the world’s creation? Sure. They had nothing else to go by, so they shrugged the question off.

But there is evidense and reason to believe that evolution is random, but no complete proof. But I called you out saying that there is absolutely no evidense for intelligent design. I don’t need you to completely prove it, scientifically or logically, but at least show me some kind of evidense, and that you can’t do.

No, there’s not. The same exact evidence you can point at and claim ‘random!’ is evidence I can point at and claim ‘design!’ It’s philosophical and open to personal interpretation at that point. Even advocates of ‘random mutation’ will mention that the randomness is bounded and constrained - before even mentioning that what seems random isn’t necessarily so. (Go read up on random number generators in Vegas and how people have exploited them - and if anyone knows about random, it’s casino operators. Finding something truly ‘random’ in this universe is amazingly hard. The best we can find is that which is unpredictable.)

 

[Hubriss]

Yeah. I went to St. Augustine High School. It seems he just tries to set up the religion so that it can’t be discounted in any way. Like with his saying on the trinity. That it is too complicated for the human mind to understand, or something like that, so we should just not worry about it. (His vision of the kid with the conch shell on the beach) But the trinity was never explicitly stated in the Bible, the concept was made by humans if you think the Bible is true or not.

In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

-Saint

Well, if the writers of the Bible, the authors, knew the truth about the creation of everything and of “the nature of the skies.” Why tell something that is wrong? I don’t think it really has any use to us for our salvation.

Only to point out that mankind is extremely exceptional and special by any reasonable standard, theistic or not.

-Nullasalus

Actually, being so exceptional and special doesn’t really take that much. A tapeworm has 14,000 genes while we have about 30,000.

Not really, because (to me) Genesis was never meant to explain the mechanism of man’s creation, other than describing God as the source. There’s no explanation of how God created the planets, light, creatures, etc - it’s simply said that God did these things. With man, there’s mention of being carved out of clay and breathing life into it, but that still does nothing to explain how it was done. If the bible - Old Testament or New - was filled with claims of how things work and describing them incorrectly (Similar to the Egyptian’s belief that, for example, eyes provide items with color, rather than realizing items had color and the eyes detected them), I’d see it shot down. In reality, all of the bible has to do with man’s relationship with himself, his fellow man, and God.

Was there a time where many people were looking to Genesis as a factual, literal telling of the world’s creation? Sure. They had nothing else to go by, so they shrugged the question off.

-Nullasalus

Okay, well then back to my original question of the post.

Since the creation story and much of the other stuff in Genesis isn’t actually true, then where did original sin come from? It’s the basis for christianity, the whole reason why Jesus came in the first place. And then you can go back to the whole original arguments on the thread. We got off on quite a tangent.

No, there’s not. The same exact evidence you can point at and claim ‘random!’ is evidence I can point at and claim ‘design!’ It’s philosophical and open to personal interpretation at that point. Even advocates of ‘random mutation’ will mention that the randomness is bounded and constrained - before even mentioning that what seems random isn’t necessarily so. (Go read up on random number generators in Vegas and how people have exploited them - and if anyone knows about random, it’s casino operators. Finding something truly ‘random’ in this universe is amazingly hard. The best we can find is that which is unpredictable.)

-Nullasalus

Yeah, I reread what I wrote earlier and though about that. I see. But when the ‘random mutation’ is bounded and constrained, it is because of physical causes.

 

[Nullasalus]

Actually, being so exceptional and special doesn’t really take that much. A tapeworm has 14,000 genes while we have about 30,000.

And we have, what, 98%? 99%? of ‘identicalness’ with a chimpanzee’s DNA or something like that. Our being exceptional isn’t in some measuring-tape numerical way. Snakes have an exceptional ability compared to humans. But what humans have over all over creation is in a class of its own. I think this is obvious, so, you either get it or you don’t.

Since the creation story and much of the other stuff in Genesis isn’t actually true, then where did original sin come from?

I was talking about the creation story and the origins/precursors to Adam and Eve. Were Adam and Eve utterly made up? I doubt it. How made up were they? I do not know - I don’t even have much of a theory, as I’m no theologian. Does man have a sinful nature? I think that’s evident. Is there an objective good (required, I suppose, if man is to have a sinful nature)? I would say so. For me it has less to do with the specific origins of original sin and more to do with whether it exists currently, to which I’d say yes. I have my own theories on things like this, but they aren’t specifically Catholic, though I believe the Church allows some freedom in this regard.

Yeah, I reread what I wrote earlier and though about that. I see. But when the ‘random mutation’ is bounded and constrained, it is because of physical causes.

I don’t see why that’s an issue for Catholics, or for God. Rather ingenious, in fact - if all of this is planned, it makes the most complicated dominoes setup look like child’s play, eh?

 

[jmcrae]

-jmcrae

Anyone can do that. You don’t have to be a bishop to be able to philosophise.

Bishops study Apostolic teaching for a living - it’s not something they do instead of their coffee break at work.

And who did they learn about God from? And them in turn?

Ultimately, it goes back to Jesus Himself, who is God. Jesus taught the Apostles, the Apostles taught the first Bishops, they taught the next generation, and on down to today, in an unbroken succession.

And no, they weren’t playing “Telephone.”

Picture, if you will, a game of “Telephone” where the participants, instead of whispering, stand up on their chairs and shout the message loud enough to get arrested for disturbing the peace, and do this repeatedly, and then write it down, and even illustrate it with pictures. That’s how the Apostles transmitted the message they got from Jesus to the next generation, and that’s pretty much how it’s been passed down, ever since. Any time there was any danger of the message getting garbled, the Church took swift and decisive action to make sure it got back to the original - this is part of why we have so little patience for heretics - because they’re messing up the message.

 

[Hubriss]

jmcrae. Read and understand that whole post. Don’t just take out little parts. Those questions were retorical.

I’m not talking about people just confusing the message. I’m talking about the power or authority the church supposedly has in creating the Bible, and claiming knowledge on truth. That is circular.

another reply to come.

 

[Hubriss]

Just a bump.

 

[YinYangMom]

From your original post for this thread:

So, where did sin come from?..

Also, Christians believe that God created us with the “gift” of free will…

God created us evil, we did not choose to be capable of evil, but if we did, then God did not make us with the gift of free will. So, since there is no original sin, then there was no point for Jesus to come down and die for us, and all the beliefs that Christianity are based upon are… pointless.

Ok, I get already from Round 1 that you really aren’t posing the question because you are personally seeking clarification, but rather to challenge our own beliefs…

but I’ll bite…again…since you’ve bumped this for some reason…for the benefit of others who may also question original sin and free will…

This time I am going to refer you to a book called “The Orthodox Way” by Bishop Kallistos Ware…

Now, I know I’m a Latin Rite Catholic, so some of the views in the book aren’t as the Latin Church see things, but up until the Schism the Church was ONE and many of the premises laid out in the book are those of the early years of the church when East and West were on the same page. Where different views exist today, the author is very good about explaining both views in a charitable manner.

I recommend the book to you because according to the way you explain your understanding of Catholic teaching it’s obvious you are relying upon incomplete and inaccurate sources. IF you care to correct your misunderstandings then this book would be a good start.

For your position in this thread I refer you to** Chapter 3: God as Creator** and Chapter 4: God as Man…

Due to forum rules I can only post a few excerpts and it’s difficult to do so because it takes a premise out of context so it may not come across as clear as it would had you read the passages leading up to them but here are a few:

re: Evil (pg 47)
“…And St. Gregory of Nyssa states, ‘Sin does not exist in nature apart from free will; it is not a substance in its own right.’ ‘Not even the demons are evil by nature’, says St Maximus the Confessor, ‘but they become such through the misuse of their natural powers.’ Evil is always parasitic. It is the twisting and misappropriation of what is in itself good. Evil resides not in the thing itself but in our attitude towards the thing - that is to say, in our will.”

The chapter goes on to explain further where this understanding comes from and what implications it has on future matters.

…more to follow

 

[YinYangMom]

continued…

Re: Evil and free will (pg 48)

“Because man has a rational soul and a spiritual intellect, he possesses the power of self-determination and of moral freedom, that is to say, the sense of good and evil, and the ability to choose between them. Where the animals act by instinct, man is capable of making a free and conscious decision.”

I won’t even attempt to expound upon that but the book does, and quite fascinatingly. I don’t even know if the Latin Catholics believe in man having a rational soul **and **a spiritual intellect, but apparently the Orthodox do and it’s an intriguing concept.

There’s a really good section on “Image and Likeness” on page 50 which addresses God making man in his image and likeness. Again, quite fascinating, and it addresses that whole free will thing really well.

Over on pages 58/59 the Fall of Man gets discussed…again, it’s different from what I was taught but still quite on mark. What’s interesting is the Orthodox addresses the fall of the angels in relation to the fall of man in a way I had not considered before:

Pg 58
“Thirdly, the rebellion of the angels makes it abundantly clear that evil originates not from below but from above, not from matter but from spirit. Evil, as already emphasized, is “no thing” (see p. 47); it is not an existent being or substance, but a wrong attitude towards what in itself is good. The source of evil lies thus in the free will of spiritual beings endowed with moral choice, who use that power of choice incorrectly.”

Pg 59
“The ‘original sin’ of man, his turning from God-centeredness to self-centeredness, meant first and foremost that he no longer looked upon the world and other human beings in a eucharistic way, as a sacrament of communion with God. He ceased to regard them as a gift, to be offered back in thanksgiving to the Giver, and he began to treat them as his own possession, to be grasped, exploited and devoured.”

Anyway…I figure it’s as good a place to start as any, since you revived the thread. It’s not my personal opinion, but a good source to find food for thought.

 

[Hubriss]

Thanks for those last two posts. I didn’t really want to see our discussions dwindle and be forgotten. That quotes you took from that book are really good, but I still have problems with some of them. I’ll try to look into the book more later.

re: Evil (pg 47)
“…And St. Gregory of Nyssa states, ‘Sin does not exist in nature apart from free will; it is not a substance in its own right.’ ‘Not even the demons are evil by nature’, says St Maximus the Confessor, ‘but they become such through the misuse of their natural powers.’ Evil is always parasitic. It is the twisting and misappropriation of what is in itself good. Evil resides not in the thing itself but in our attitude towards the thing - that is to say, in our will.”

-YingYangMom

St. Masimus says, “Not even the demons are evil by nature, but they become such through the misuse of their natural powers.” So does that mean that we or the soul can become evil? That goes against what you or someone else said earlier, that no one could ever be evil, just their actions. But also, if the soul can become evil, doesn’t that mean that it is natural for the spirit to become evil, or it is part of its nature? So if one says that it is not the spirits nature to be evil, then according to that logic, intelligence cannot be considered part of human nature, because not all humans are automatically intelligent, especially if they are raised in the wild without other human contact. But if the capability of being intelligent is part of human nature, then the capability of being evil will also be part of human nature, or the nature of creation, according to this logical analogy.

Pg 58
“Thirdly, the rebellion of the angels makes it abundantly clear that evil originates not from below but from above, not from matter but from spirit. Evil, as already emphasized, is “no thing” (see p. 47); it is not an existent being or substance, but a wrong attitude towards what in itself is good. The source of evil lies thus in the free will of spiritual beings endowed with moral choice, who use that power of choice incorrectly.”

-YingYangMom

So it says that evil is “no thing.” But that really doesn’t mean that things can’t be evil. But for now, lets assume that nothing in itself is evil. To me, this would heave to also mean that nothing “in itself is good.” Good and evil are opposites. So if there is nothing that is absolutely evil, no part of creation or the spirit world or whatever, that is evil, then there could be no good. You must have something that is “evil” to compare “good” to. And also, the spirit cannot become good by doing good acts, just as it cannot become evil by doing evil acts. I’m agnostic, but I do tend to argue from an atheistic perspective while I’m talking with the religious. And I do argue somewhat from a religious perspective when I’m talking with atheists. If there is a god, I don’t think it is a personal god, or can be classified or has classified the universe as good or evil. I think it will be neutral, or not even caring about morality at all, at least in our lives.

Pg 59
“The ‘original sin’ of man, his turning from God-centeredness to self-centeredness, meant first and foremost that he no longer looked upon the world and other human beings in a eucharistic way, as a sacrament of communion with God. He ceased to regard them as a gift, to be offered back in thanksgiving to the Giver, and he began to treat them as his own possession, to be grasped, exploited and devoured.”

-YingYangMom

This sort of contradicts the Bible. It said that God gave man dominion over creation right? To be grasped, exploited, and devoured.

 

[YinYangMom]

Thanks for those last two posts. I didn’t really want to see our discussions dwindle and be forgotten. That quotes you took from that book are really good, but I still have problems with some of them. I’ll try to look into the book more later.

You’re welcome. Well since the book is about the Orthodox Way I have some problems with some of them, too. But all in all, the book does serve as good food for thought.

So does that mean that we or the soul can become evil? That goes against what you or someone else said earlier, that no one could ever be evil, just their actions. But also, if the soul can become evil, doesn’t that mean that it is natural for the spirit to become evil, or it is part of its nature? So if one says that it is not the spirits nature to be evil, then according to that logic, intelligence cannot be considered part of human nature, because not all humans are automatically intelligent, especially if they are raised in the wild without other human contact. But if the capability of being intelligent is part of human nature, then the capability of being evil will also be part of human nature, or the nature of creation, according to this logical analogy.

This is where you’d need to read the chapters leading up to those pages in order to get the full context. I can’t condense it without losing the message, which is why even my attempt to highlight sections leads to even more questions. Excellent questions, though, don’t you think? It’s good that we ask them. I believe you’d find the answers in the book, but of course, they would be answers for The Orthodox Way - their perspective, not so much for all humanity…though, in theory, The Orthodox Way would work for all humanity if properly followed…but that’s pretty much what we Latin Catholics believe about the way we view God’s way for man.

So it says that evil is “no thing.” But that really doesn’t mean that things can’t be evil. But for now, lets assume that nothing in itself is evil. To me, this would heave to also mean that nothing “in itself is good.” Good and evil are opposites. So if there is nothing that is absolutely evil, no part of creation or the spirit world or whatever, that is evil, then there could be no good. You must have something that is “evil” to compare “good” to.

Good points, however, I suspect the answer, upon research, will be that the need for ‘balance’ stemmed from the Fall. That prior to that everything on the earth was, indeed, good. Except where in this book the author rightly reminds us of the fall of the angels which happened well before the fall of man. That was good food for thought as I hadn’t considered it before. Then again, if I recall correctly the bottom line to all of that is that the objects in and of themselves not only were good in the beginning, but **continue **to be good for all time - what changed was our human perspective/relationship to those objects. Once man fell our perspective was tainted and we’d forever on this earth see everything from blurred lenses. With prayer and a spiritual life we can upgrade our lenses to help things get more focused, but it won’t be until we leave this earth to enter into eternity that we’ll be free from lenses altogether.

 

[YinYangMom]

…continued

And also, the spirit cannot become good by doing good acts, just as it cannot become evil by doing evil acts… If there is a god, I don’t think it is a personal god, or can be classified or has classified the universe as good or evil. I think it will be neutral, or not even caring about morality at all, at least in our lives.

Before I address the spirit thing, allow me to point out that God could not be neutral. This is because God is Love. Love, in and of itself, has to be shared - to be given and to be received - a neutral position is impossible. For more on that read Pope Benedict XVIs encyclical “Deus Caritas Est”.

In the book ‘spirit’ is defined according to the Orthodox view, so it’s important to take the passages mentioning ‘spirit’ from the book with that perspective. Something you couldn’t do since I didn’t have the space to give you the background. The author notes that the Orthodox view differs from the West so I take the passages not as absolute but as a guiding light toward Truth on the matter.

It’s important to remember that all Catholics view creation from a Trinitarian lense, since that is how God has revealed Himself to us. I’m sorry I can’t speak from the Western Tradition because I haven’t read up on it yet on this matter, however, now that I’ve read the Orthodox position my curiosity is peaked and I do plan to look into it.

In a nutshell the book expounds upon this understanding of man: as Body, Soul and Spirit (see the Trinitarian aspect to that?)

From pg 48:
Body: “…the physical or material aspect of man’s nature”
Soul: “…the life-force that vivifies and animates the body, causing it to be not just a lump of matter, but something that grows and moves, that feels and perceives.”
Spirit: “…the ‘breath’ from God which the animals lack…It is important to distinguish “Spirit” [Holy Spirit]… from “spirit” [our spirit]…yet the two are intimately connected, for it is through his spirit that man apprehends God and enters into communion with him.”

“With his soul (psyche) man engages in scientific or philosophical inquiry…With his spirit (pneuma)…or spiritual intellect, he understands eternal truth about God…not through deductive reasoning, but by direct apprehension or spiritual perception”

Certainly food for thought, isn’t it?

This sort of contradicts the Bible. It said that God gave man dominion over creation right? To be grasped, exploited, and devoured.

The Bible doesn’t say that, the author of The Orthodox Way does.

In the first Story of Creation it says: Genesis 1:28-30
*God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth.” God also said: “See, I give you every seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals and all the living creatures that crawl for food” And so it happened.

*The author is explaining the effects of original sin on man. Before the Fall man recognized his dominion over creation as a gift from God to sustain him (food), but after the fall, longing to feel the way he did before the fall but not able to do so, he develops a distorted view of the very same gifts. Creation didn’t change…these were the same plants, the same fish, the same birds, but now - through clouded lenses - they remind man of what he lost and so he deals with them with anger and resentment as if they were his own to posses, grasp, exploit and devour. God gave man creation to eat, not to devour. Eve’s physical shape did not change, but the way Adam looked at her after the fall did and thus lust entered into the picture. She, too, through Adam’s eyes became a creature to be exploited, grasped at, devoured.

The way Christopher West explains JPIIs Theology of the body might help you understand our view of things. We’ve been conditioned over time to believe the way we look at each other naked - becoming aroused as a result or not - is ‘normal’. It isn’t. It’s distorted but it’s been so for so long we’ve forgotten that it wasn’t always that way. The ‘normal’ way to view one’s body and sexuality is as a gift from God to be treasured, not something just biological to be used for instant gratification any way or any time we see fit. The purpose of reflecting upon the Genesis accounts is to remind us of the way life began, the way it’s meant to be, and the way we are to work to restoring while on earth.